ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
Multicenter Study of Pelvic Nodal Autosegmentation Algorithm of Siemens Healthineers: Comparison of Male Versus Female Pelvis.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective development and evaluation of a 2D convolutional neural network-based auto-segmentation model for cervical cancer radiotherapy.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Cross-anatomical evaluation of a deep-learning auto-contouring system: qualitative, geometric, and dosimetric validation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Automatic pelvic bone segmentation for radiotherapy using diagnostic imaging workstation.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation and failure analysis of four commercial deep learning-based autosegmentation software for abdominal organs at risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Sex-Based Bias in Artificial Intelligence-Based Segmentation Models in Clinical Oncology.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2025Review
- Under-representation for Female Pelvis Cancers in Commercial Auto-segmentation Solutions and Open-source Imaging Datasets.Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2025Article
- Challenges and opportunities to integrate artificial intelligence in radiation oncology: a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- Review of Deep Learning Based Autosegmentation for Clinical Target Volume: Current Status and Future Directions.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Review
- The accuracy of artificial intelligence deformed nodal structures in cervical online cone-beam-based adaptive radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The autosegmentation algorithm of Siemens Healthineers version VA 30 (AASH) (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) was trained and developed in the male pelvis, with no published data on its usability in the female pelvis. This is the first multi-institutional study to describe and evaluate an artificial intelligence algorithm for autosegmentation of the pelvic nodal region by gender. Methods and Materials: We retrospectively evaluated AASH pelvic nodal autosegmentation in both male and female patients treated at our network of institutions. The automated pelvic nodal contours generated by AASH were evaluated by 1 board-certified radiation oncologist. A 4-point scale was used for each nodal region contour: a score of 4 is clinically usable with minimal edits; a score of 3 requires minor edits (missing nodal contour region, cutting through vessels, or including bowel loops) in 3 or fewer computed tomography slices; a score of 2 requires major edits, as previously defined but in 4 or more computed tomography slices; and a score of 1 requires complete recontouring of the region. Pelvic nodal regions included the right and left side of the common iliac, external iliac, internal iliac, obturator, and midline presacral nodes. In addition, patients were graded based on their lowest nodal contour score. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher exact tests and Yates-corrected χ Results: Fifty-two female and 51 male patients were included in the study, representing a total of 468 and 447 pelvic nodal regions, respectively. Ninety-six percent and 99% of contours required minor edits at most (score of 3 or 4) for female and male patients, respectively ( Conclusions: AASH pelvic nodal autosegmentation performed very well in both male and female pelvic nodal regions, although with better male pelvic nodal autosegmentation. As autosegmentation becomes more widespread, it may be important to have equal representation from all sexes in training and validation of autosegmentation algorithms.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.